Searching for the Essential Simplicity that underlies all complex subjects. Of my 168 posts (listed in 'Blog Archive') the currently most popular are automatically listed in the right hand column. Total Reads (To date: 46,819 hits)

Tuesday, 28 June 2016

Explaining Brexit to a Taiwanese friend

Dear Hsiu Ju,

My first thought, on hearing that the referendum resulted in
a 52:48 vote for leaving the European Union, was a sort of stunned disbelief.
How could we?Why did Cameron
chose to have a referendum now? Maybe he tricked himself into it.

It is ironic that the two campaigns did not meet each
other’s arguments. There was little deployment of the emotional case for
staying (apart from Gordon Brown, and John Major). There was little
clarification of the elected and thus democratic nature of the two European councils
and parliament, and their supremacy over the commission (except by Professor Michael Dougan). No-one pointed out that we could already operate a points based
system for non-EU immigrants, but chose to let them in for several over-riding
reasons (humanitarian, or selfish). There was no answer by the 'leavers' to the
financial case for ‘remain’, except to repeat lies about £350 million per week.
The press and broadcast media may have let us down; been biased, or feeble. But
such a conclusion smacks of paranoia, and in any case only pushes the question
back one stage. There are undeniable problems with the Euro, the Concilium is
cliquey, the Commission is too powerful and too independent, and the fiasco in
the Middle East has placed a new strain on the open borders, but these points where hardly discussed during the campaign.

So, there was an inadequate debate; just slogans. But can
democracy be so easily fooled? Perhaps it would be wiser to assume that those
who voted for exit had good reasons.

A scrutiny of the results showed several clear trends. The
young favoured 'Remain'; the old favoured 'Exit'. It also emerged that northerners,
labourers, and the less educated do not want to be in the union, and it is easy
to see why; they suffer by it. You ask me what people were thinking about when
they voted ‘leave’. I have heard the following points of view, and put them in
roughly the following order.

1. Some people think that too many east Europeans are coming
to the UK, drawing Social Security, or taking jobs and lowering wages. (Of
course, such immigration is in general welcomed by those who buy labour, but is
bad for all those who sell labour, or need charity.)

2. Some cry “Give
us back our sovereignty”. I believe this attitude is partly based on a mistake.
Democratically elected British representatives in the European Parliament and
Council of Ministers approved most of the laws made by Europe, but did not have
the guts to say so to a divided Britain. The media found it amusing to ridicule
the funny rules of the 'foreigners'; and of course there are always SOME grounds to disparage
any law. There may even be some European laws (or rulings), that a majority of
British people object to, but we certainly do not know that, because such a
question has never been put to a referendum. From my perspective, European laws are well made, and the process is wonderfully open to scrutiny. On the other hand the Union does seem destined to make some mistakes: the problems with the Euro, theCommission beingtoo powerful and independent, the move simultaneously to widen and deepen the Union.

3. It was said that we pay £350 million a week to Europe,
and many voters will have thought that was far too much. They were apparently
unaware that we got most of it back, either as money or as benefit (farm
subsidies, bridges built, etc.). There is a suspicion that the bureacracy of
the Union wastes money, but this is largely in ignorance; the audit is
thorough, and the civil service very much smaller than our own on a per caput basis. Britain is above
average wealthy (in the context of Europe ), and so we contribute some money to
be spent on poorer parts of Europe (as also other parts of the world on a voluntary basis). Some people
probably objected to us funding donations to recipients chosen by Europe rather
than by Britain. Indeed, I have occasionally wondered why it has been assumed that
the traditionally poorer countries of southern Europe need to be brought up to
the same standard of living as the chilly countries of northern Europe, when
they enjoy such a stunningly superior climate. "Free movement of
peoples" would have evened things out.

4. The trend in Europe seemed to be for continued expansion.
The idea of 78 million turkish muslims joining Europe may have alarmed a number
of voters.

Our parliament is sovereign in the UK, and should debate
what we should do. (Proportional Representation would have made a
referendum unnecessary.) There is no law that says we have to ‘obey’ a
referendum. (Only 39% of voters called for exit (0.76 x 0.52)). There are solid
financial grounds for remaining in Europe, and cultural and political benefits
from remaining in, and improving, the Union. On the other hand there are solid
objections that must be met. The absence of a specific and detailed alternative
to the European Union is scary, and the task of creating one is rather daunting;
but those would be poor reasons for staying.

Monday, 6 June 2016

I
think the fact that the European Union is under strain, and its fabric creaking
alarmingly is, at least in part, the fault of Great Britain.

A
club was set up with the clearly formed, but partly hidden, objective of making
cooperation pay (in monetary terms) to such an extent that the key states in
Europe would voluntarily integrate their economies and war would become
unthinkable.

For
some reason** we (the UK) opted to stay out but, after a decade, began to envy
the economic advantages of membership; and after a further decade we joined the
club, in 1973. But we did so with reservations, with our fingers crossed,
so-to-speak. A sizable section of the UK thought it possible to have the
economic advantages without the integration. Meanwhile the core (and founding)
members of the club continued with their original and by now perfectly explicit
intention of integration.

Since
the UK joined the European Union, there has been steady progress in two
somewhat conflicting directions — widening, and deepening. I believe Britain
was as keen as any country to enlarge the Union with the inclusion of the Mediterranean
countries, and the countries of Eastern Europe freed from the Soviet Union following
the removal of the Berlin wall in 1990. Enlargement would increase the size of
the 'Single Market', and at the same time secure the democratization of these
once-Soviet countries. Meanwhile the deepeners proceeded with their project by
abolishing passport controls (1995) over the 26 countries of the Schengen Area,
and introducing a single common currency for the 19 countries of the Euro Group
(1999/1/1). The UK opted out of both those deepening steps. But even for the 2
EU countries that have opted out of the Schengen area (UK and Eire) there is no
way we can exclude the entry of EU passport holders.

Now,
in June 2016, we have some vociferous voices in Britain wishing that we had not
opened our border so generously to mass immigration of Eastern Europeans. It is
ironic, is it not? We thought we could have their labour and their markets
without having to share our social services and welfare-state. (And I suppose
we could, had we sufficiently anticipated.) Likewise, there are skeptics
who claim there is a logical fallacy in having countries like Germany and
Greece sharing a common currency; dour, mercantilist, credit-countries and
sunny debtor-countries. German and French banks were happy to receive regular
interest payments from Greece and Portugal, but were not prepared to shoulder
their bad debts. Is it not ironic, and reprehensible, that this failure to pay was
not foreseen by the lenders? I, and others, think it is
perfectly possible for rich and poor countries to share a currency, with iron discipline (see
Ecuador and the USA); but Martin West and
other argue convincingly that it is indeed impossible to manage a currency
that suits both Greece and Germany equally.

What happens if we vote to leave? Do we
lick our wounds, see how many countries choose to leave with us, then establish
an alternative union more to our liking?

What
happens if we stay? Do we start attending more creatively to the debates that
shape the Union, rectify knows weaknesses, and learn to live with our
neighbours?

I
can face either possibility, but I would grieve if our exit led to the collapse
of the whole European project, grieve for the immense and high-minded effort
that has gone into creating a unique Union of cooperating states, over these
last 65 years.

(**
Perhaps a smug conceit that we had little to learn and, with our Commonwealth,
little to gain,)

About Me

My Cawstein profile shows me struggling to understand politics, economics, and occasionally philosophy, commenting on the misuse of the English language and other perceived follies gaining currency in our times

Of course, this Cawstein only emerged when the web itself emerged. Before that there was neither the means of developing these characteristic ideas, nor the time. I suffered as a child the constraint of having to go to school. Then there were 45 years of disciplined application to a career in academic biochemistry (where my contributions lay in bioenergetics and membrane transport, chiefly in bacteria and mitochondria).